1. This appeal under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, District Rewa in Sessions Trial No.196 of 2018. By the said judgment, the learned trial court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sections 413, 414 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, but while passing the order regarding disposal of property, directed that since the seized property has not been claimed by the accused and hence the same has been confiscated.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the appellant was arrested in connection with a case registered under Section 41(14) of the CrPC/Section 379 of the IPC and certain gold and silver ornaments, fixed deposit receipts, ATM cards Aadhar card and a mobile phone were allegedly seized from her possession. It was alleged that the appellant, in connivance with her sister Pushpa Patel, committed thefts from shops, houses, buses and autos and that the stolen articles were kept at her residence. Consequently, offence under Sections 411, 413, 414 and 120-B of the IPC was registered. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and after committal the matter was tried by the learned trial Court. The trial culminated in acquittal of the appellant of the aforesaid offences; however, the seized property was ordered to be confiscated.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the articles seized vide seizure memo dated 07.02.2017 was recovered from the possession of the appellant and no third party has come forward to claim the same. It is contended that, despite recording a clear finding in paragraph-22 of the impugned judgment that the prosecution failed to prove the charges, the learned trial Court erred in paragraph-24 by directing confiscation of the seized property. It is further submitted that several articles including FDRs, ATM card, Aaadhar Card, PAN Card, etc., are in the name of the appellant, which clearly establishes her ownership, and therefore, the property ought to have been released in her favour.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that there is no complainant in the present case. The property in question was seized by the police vide seizure memo (Ex.P-6) from the possession of the appellant. Although, the appellant may not have explicitly claimed the property during trial, the seized articles include documents admittedly pertaining to her. Furthermore, no other person has laid any claim over the said property. In such circumstances, and particularly in view of the acquittal of the appellant, the order of confiscation passed by the learned trial Court is unsustainable.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 07.03.2024, insofar as it relates to the confiscation of the seized property as per seizure memo (Ex.P-6), is hereby set aside. It is directed that the articles seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-6) shall be released in favour of the appellant, subject to due identification and in accordance with law.

7. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the concerned authorities for its speedy compliance and necessary action.